... Genes: Molecular biologists have appropriated the term "gene" to refer to stretches of DNA that code for a protein. Unfortunately, this sense differs from the one used in population genetics, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary theory, namely any information carrier that is transmissible across generations and has sustained effects on the phenotype. This includes any aspect of DNA that can affect gene expression, and is closer to what is meant by "innate" than genes in the molecular biologists' narrow sense. The confusion between the two leads to innumerable red herrings in discussions of our makeup, such as the banality that the expression of genes (in the sense of protein-coding stretches of DNA) is regulated by signals from the environment. How else could it be? The alternative is that every cell synthesizes every protein all the time! The epigenetics bubble inflated by the science media is based on a similar confusion.

... Even the technical sense of "environment" used in quantitative behavioral genetics is perversely confusing. Now, there is nothing wrong with partitioning phenotypic variance into components that correlate with genetic variation (heritability) and with variation among families ("shared environment"). The problem comes from the so-called "nonshared" or "unique environmental influences." This consists of all the variance that is attributable neither to genetic nor familiar variation. In most studies, it's calculated as 1 – (heritability + shared environment). Practically, you can think of it as the differences between identical twins who grow up in the same home. They share their genes, parents, older and younger siblings, home, school, peers, and neighborhood. So what could make them different? Under the assumption that behavior is a product of genes plus environment, it must be something in the environment of one that is not in the environment of the other.

But this category really should be called "miscellaneous/unknown," because it has nothing necessarily to do with any measurable aspect of the environment, such as one sibling getting the top bunk bed and the other the bottom, or a parent unpredictably favoring one child, or one sibling getting chased by a dog, coming down with a virus, or being favored by a teacher. These influences are purely conjectural, and studies looking for them have failed to find them. The alternative is that this component actually consists of the effects of chance – new mutations, quirky prenatal effects, noise in brain development, and events in life with unpredictable effects.

My impression of male identical twins is that many spend quite a bit of their formative years punching each other. More perhaps than non-twin brothers do, perhaps because they are so evenly matched that neither one has any reason to say to himself: I'd better just let him have it because if we fought I'd probably lose. This sibling violence presumably has random effects on how the identical twins turn out: while the total amount dished out and taken is about equal, the precise effects on different organs likely differs.

Stochastic effects in development are increasingly being recognized by epidemiologists, frustrated by such recalcitrant phenomena such as nonagenarian pack-a-day smokers and identical twins discordant for schizophrenia, homosexuality, and disease outcomes. They are increasingly forced to acknowledge that God plays dice with our traits. Developmental biologists have come to similar conclusions. The bad habit of assuming that anything not classically genetic must be "environmental" has blinkered behavioral geneticists (and those who interpret their findings) into the fool's errand of looking for environmental effects for what may be randomness in developmental processes.

A lot of things may be just that, say, one cell splits funny and that starts a cascade. For example, I almost died of cancer 17 years ago. Nobody has much of a clue why.

A final confusion in the equation is the seemingly sophisticated add-on of "gene-environment interactions." This is also designed to confuse. Gene-environment interactions do not refer to the fact that the environment is necessary for genes to do their thing (which is true of all genes). It refers to a flipflop effect in which genes affect a person one way in one environment but another way in another environment, whereas an alternative genes has a different pattern. For example, if you inherit allele 1, you are vulnerable: a stressor makes you neurotic. If you inherit allele 2, you are resilient: a stressor leaves you normal. With either gene, if you are never stressed, you're normal.

Gene-environment interactions in this technical sense, confusingly, go into the "unique environmental" component, because they are not the same (on average) in siblings growing up in the same family. Just as confusingly, "interactions" in the common-sense sense, namely that a person with a given genotype is predictably affected by the environment, goes into the "heritability" component, because quantitative genetics measures only correlations. This confound is behind the finding that the heritability of intelligence increases, and the effects of shared environment decrease, over a person's lifetime. One explanation is that genes have effects late in life, but another is that people with a given genotype place themselves in environments that indulge their inborn tastes and talents. The "environment" increasingly depends on the genes, rather than being an exogenous cause of behavior.

For example, as a child I went out of the way to create an environment for myself that was conducive to my tastes for the intellectual life (e.g., spending a lot of the time at the library -- and I benefited from living two-blocks from the library), but as a middle-aged man I've totally gone over the top in arranging my environment to suit my innate predilection.

For example, as a child I went out of the way to create an environment for myself that was conducive to my tastes for the intellectual life (e.g., spending a lot of the time at the library -- and I benefited from living two-blocks from the library), but as a middle-aged man I've totally gone over the top in arranging my environment to suit my innate predilection.

Yes but which genes dominate in such an environment? Genetic influence extends outside the body. Just because your genes are the only genes physically present in your environment, doesn't mean they are the only genetic influences or the dominant genetic influences. The environment includes other genes.

The bad habit of assuming that anything not classically genetic must be "environmental" has blinkered behavioral geneticists (and those who interpret their findings) into the fool's errand of looking for environmental effects for what may be randomness in developmental processes.

A lot of things may be just that, say, one cell splits funny and that starts a cascade. For example, I almost died of cancer 17 years ago. Nobody has much of a clue why.

It's not a fool's errand at all. The danger is in simply assuming "developmental randomness" as dogma and inhibiting the careful study of environment.

But Pinker is disingenuous and has an agenda (if only subconscious): he wants control over what's classified as "genetic". He's not really afraid of "environmental" explanations. What he's really afraid of is people searching the environment and discovering the extended phenotypic effects and phenomena of genes.

Based on my own admittedly small sample size, I have to say that I find the notion that children who grow up in the same family share an identical environment to be laughable. Parents do treat children differently, sometimes extremely differently.

"but another is that people with a given genotype place themselves in environments that indulge their inborn tastes and talents."

There is a community. There's a church, a pool hall, a library, a movie theater, a ball park.

There are five people. One spends most time at church, another at pool hall, another at library, another at movie theater, another at ball park.

So, they are in the same environment but they engage with it in very different ways. For each, the places they ignore might as well not even exist while they place they frequent could mean everything.

Also, mood affects how one looks at environment. If a person is shot with happy drug on monday, sad drug on tuesday, angry drug on wednesday, lazy drug on thursday, and crazy drug on friday, he will perceive and engage with his environment in very different ways on each of the days.

>The inability to measure something is not an argument against the things existence, it's an argument in favor of better measuring techniques.<

It can also be an argument for completely reconceptualizing the field. No instrument will tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, correct?

That said, the resolution of these quirks might require big-time conceptual overhauling, but probably not.

I would prefer scientists to better measure mutations et al. rather than differences in how parents treat twins. The latter strikes me as much more idiosyncratic. After all, who truly understands parental behavior?

I would prefer scientists to better measure mutations et al. rather than differences in how parents treat twins. The latter strikes me as much more idiosyncratic. After all, who truly understands parental behavior?

I repeat, the fact that you don't understand something does not mean that it does not exist or is not important. Where would science be if this attitude had been applied to light? Sound? Gravity?

"For example, as a child I went out of the way to create an environment for myself that was conducive to my tastes for the intellectual life (e.g., spending a lot of the time at the library -- and I benefited from living two-blocks from the library), but as a middle-aged man I've totally gone over the top in arranging my environment to suit my innate predilection."

It looks like you're describing gene-environment correlations. While they sound plausible conceptually, and they are rather popular with those interested in heredity, there actually isn't much evidence that they matter much at all. Meng Hu had a great discussion on the topic:

However, what’s left over, after you’ve accounted for “attenuated heredity” may be what’s known developmental noise. This is “environmental” in the sense that it’s not inherited, but is essentially random and not subject to controlled manipulation.

Or we think it’s random. See Kevin Mitchell on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDFh74eENuw

And finally, perhaps most poignant of all, but greatly underrated, is the fact that that identical twins are not actually genetically identical, but possess subtle differences due to de novo mutations. While behavioral geneticists and others like to ignore these, identical twins are our metric of the effects of heredity. We think we can precisely measure the genetic effect vs “environmental” one by looking at identical twins raised together – anything different between them must be due to environment, so the story goes. But the differences between them could be due to genes, so in reality, we have no idea how big the effect of the “environment” truly is.

These differences are starting to recognized as being potentially powerful, as seen from the differences of supposedly (but not truly) genetically identical mice:

And finally, perhaps most poignant of all, but greatly underrated, is the fact that that identical twins are not actually genetically identical, but possess subtle differences due to de novo mutations. While behavioral geneticists and others like to ignore these, identical twins are our metric of the effects of heredity.

It's more for the sake of convenience. We don't if we it is justified to make the assumption that the effects of these mutations can be ignored. Some and perhaps even all of the difference between identical twins could stem from these mutations. Again, twins are our metric on the effects of heredity. Think about it.

Now this one is really good. A besetting vice of the modern age is to assume we know all the factors involved and just have to figure out the exact proportions - but there can be no mystery in this grand scientific age.

What's genius? Why it's IQ+personality traits like openness! There is no mystery in genius - how could there be? This is the age of science. Because we know absolutely everything there is to be known about intelligence in the form of the infallible IQ test so clearly, no mystery there, and if it isn't a kind of pure intelligence not captured by our perfect IQ tests, then it must be something else that we know. But there cannot be chance or mystery.

All phenomena must be explained through known factors in some interaction and no admission of mystery or chance can be made. It' a kind of mad scientist hubris that makes our age blind. Of course I'm not saying the mystery need be final, although in many cases it will undoubtedly prove so, but that at the current moment, there is a huge mystery surrounding such things as intelligence, nutrition, and other phenomena, and to pretend that we know about it is worse is far worse than simply admitting that the state of current science is on very shaky ground.

Nutrition is another good one. My roomate is a nutritionist, and he will plainly deny any health pehnomena that is not grounded in known nutritional factors. When I point out that we don't know everything about nutrition and that in fact we know precious little, he can't accept it.

Does that sound unintelligent? It's the rule of the age we live in. My roomate's a smart guy in some ways- he'd score high on an IQ test - but he has a kind of stupidity or blindness that impedes progress. But wait, I can't say that, because either he is smart or he is stupid. It's probably personality. It can't be that his mind has a defect that he simply can't see complexity and uncertainty in a situation.

It's more for the sake of convenience. We don't if we it is justified to make the assumption that the effects of these mutations can be ignored. Some and perhaps even all of the difference between identical twins could stem from these mutations. Again, twins are our metric on the effects of heredity. Think about it.

It's not an entirely unreasonable assumption since we know most mutations are neutral. Also as novel mutations they're not the products of specific selective pressures.

There are no perfectly controlled experiments, even in more rigorous fields like physics. The point is to get a sense of the probabilities.

We tend to see nurture as opposed to nature, but nurturability may be more hardwired into some than others.

Nurturability has the nurturing side and the nurtured side.

Nurturing side of the nurture gene wants to nurture.

Nurtured side of the nurture gene is receptive to nurturing.

It may be that some individuals--and some groups--have stronger nurture genes.

Some women really love their kids while other women see children as a nuisance. Take the film GEORGY GIRL where Charlotte Rampling hates her kid and just wants to go off and have fun again. But Lynn Redgrave has a nurturing gene and adopts the baby though not hers.

Likewise, some kids are very receptive to nurturement while others are not so very much. Among animals, puppies more so than kittens. Puppies want to grow closer to humans as they develop. Kittens grow more distant from humans as they mature.

(Oddly enough, dogs are louder and more aggressive yet also more obedient and docile; cats are gentler and more timid yet more fierce and stubborn.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8YCQ8j55VM

Consider laughter.

Some might say laughability is natural, i.e. some people are born with the funny bone; others might say it's a case of nurture, i.e. people exposed to more jokes will laugh more.

But what we call 'nature' is, to an extent, one's innate tendency to be nurturing and/or nurtured.

Those born with the funny bone are more likely to tell jokes and laugh at jokes.

Consider two people. One is prone to laughter and the other isn't.

Both can be nurtured to laugh because even humorless people will laugh at something. So, some might say laughter is a case of nurture. But, those with the funny bone will be more responsive to the nurture of laughter. They will be the first to laugh. And they will be more likely to wanna spread the joy of laughter to others by 'nurturing' others toward humor.

Those without the funny bone may be made to laugh too, but it takes more effort. They can be nurtured to laugh but their nurture gene of laughter isn't as powerful as it is with some other people.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.